The fact that you had to use the word "maybe" confirms that it is troublesome to draw conclusions from this out-of-context snippet. Yeah, I know you were being facetious, but that really only works when you know you are right. But you don't, so it doesn't.
Android is given away for FREE. Thus by that very definition it CANNOT generate earnings for Google. Thus no need to mention it in an earnings meeting.
I beg to differ with your conclusion in a big way. While it's true that Google gets no compensation from the handset makers for their use of Android, Google is doing this (and spending much development $$$ on it) for a reason that comes back around to money.
Eventually, the question must arise: "How is that Android experiment working out for you in terms of capturing advertising revenue via Mobile search?" Data exists that can estimate the answer, and Google already knows the cost. One day, there will be a side-by-side comparison in order to determine Android's return on investment.
Thus, they must eventually mention it, unless the stock holders just decide to turn a blind eye and not ask the question.
So the problem isn't the stealing, but merely the frequency of the stealing?
What is the amount of stealing one should find acceptable? Is it a time-weighted rate of theft (e.g., "7 thefts per year") or an aggregate count (e.g., "no more than 20 thefts overall")?
Reminds me of the US Senator who, when confronted about Abu Ghraib, said, "At least we're not Saddam Hussein".
As in every area of life - shockingly - it's the magnitude of the crime that matters. The iOS notification center is activated in a similar way to the Android notification center. It could, quite easily, work a different way. If Google had a patent on the notification center, they could sue Apple, and if Apple lost they could easily fix it. They probably wouldn't lose though, because the way notification center is activated is very similar to the way other tasks are achieved in iOS, and Apple itself created the set of multitouch gestures that define the possibilities in multitouch UIs. Meanwhile, Android owes its entire existence to iOS. It would be a completely different product if iOS had not existed. It's the difference between stealing someone's identity and cleaning out their bank account and taking a grape at the supermarket. So yeah, if you somehow had failed noticed before now, typically the magnitude and, yes, frequency of a crime is both legally and morally relevant.
So according to some posters here the fault now isn't that Google copied iOS straight up but rather that, sensing an emerging change in the market, they modified android OS accordingly?
As in every area of life - shockingly - it's the magnitude of the crime that matters. The iOS notification center is activated in a similar way to the Android notification center. It could, quite easily, work a different way. If Google had a patent on the notification center, they could sue Apple, and if Apple lost they could easily fix it. They probably wouldn't lose though, because the way notification center is activated is very similar to the way other tasks are achieved in iOS, and Apple itself created the set of multitouch gestures that define the possibilities in multitouch UIs. Meanwhile, Android owes its entire existence to iOS. It would be a completely different product if iOS had not existed. It's the difference between stealing someone's identity and cleaning out their bank account and taking a grape at the supermarket. So yeah, if you somehow had failed noticed before now, typically the magnitude and, yes, frequency of a crime is both legally and morally relevant.
Should no one else have joined in on the party apple started?
They changed the game sure but they were never the only players and it's foolish of you to hold fault in Google for playing the game.
I never once said that Apple didn't influence Android. In fact, it influenced it a lot. But since you get so riled up over someone simply disagreeing with you I have no reason to discuss this with you. You're clearly one of those people who have some predetermined speech about Android the moment someone brings it up. Especially since you apparently know more than everyone. I've not once heard of confirmation that Android changed its product design post iPhone. Do I think it did? Hell yes I do. Am I certain it did? No. And neither should you. You see a picture of a very old prototype and make hundreds of conclusions about it. That's not someone I'd like to discuss things with. I'd much rather continue my discussion esummers, sorry.
I'm not riled up. I like a lot of what Android brings. But where you Android was 'inspired' I see they cloned. Samsung just took it a step further and made the cloning more blatant. Google has certainly done some new and innovative stuff with Android, but at it core, it's foundational UX is meant to mimic the iPhone.
To be fair, I work in RIM-town as a software developer (not at RIM) and until last year Google's Canadian development office was around the corner from me and in that office they have been doing a lot of mobile development, pre-iPhone launch and way before Android. They don't all contribute to Android proper, but certainly are very involved with Android as a platform. We are a fairly small city and developers mingle a lot. The people I've known from the Reqwireless days right up to Google today don't kids themselves the way you do. They are under no illusions that Android was more than inspired, but they are proud of what they have done since to differentiate themselves since.
Are you seriously trying to compare that horrible stylus using, shitty browsing, low-rez, clunky, thing with nav arrows to the original iPhone?
2005 had certain technological limitation. Nevertheless, some companies were trying even then. Everyone who followed learned from their experience and example. It's a good thing.
Hey now. It doesn't seem to matter if the way it looks or even works is different. Remember?
-_-
You still don't get it. The Palm and the iPhone have similarities based on features that are common at some level, but at some other level of implementation their differences and merits of said differences can be debated. Some people believe that the differences between certain mobile devices and their respective OSes are trivial when compared at a level that is pertinent to their function, whereas other areas of differentiation create vastly different functionality. You see a great chasm between iOS and Android, others see a tiny crack. Your defense of your perception isn't going to change theirs. Get over it.
Should no one else have joined in on the party apple started?
They changed the game sure but they were never the only players and it's foolish of you to hold fault in Google for playing the game.
The way the game is played, you either avoid stepping on other people's toes or you innovate on top of past innovation extensively enough that you have something other people want, and then you're in a position to negotiate. Google operates by copying something and giving it away for free. Its innovation is in sales. It's also the case that typically people "joining the party" have some connection with the party already, whereas Google is joining because it's worried about revenue for a completely unrelated product, and that's why its IP position is/was so abnormally weak.
I think what Google's doing here is an example of exactly why we need IP law. A company that relies on a revenue stream from a different market, entered another market and copied the IP of another company, simply because it wanted to ensure that company wouldn't become the market leader. If patent trolls are the dark side of having IP law, what Google did is the dark side of not having enforceable IP law, where innovators have their products stolen by companies whose goal is simply to ensure that they don't succeed because they're worried about their own market position.
I don't know what the outcome of all these patent suits will be - I suspect Google will get away with it - but quite apart from the minutiae details of IP law, I think if Google does get away with it, that's every bit as much an injustice as patent trolls who do nothing but collect patents and earn a living suing people.
To be fair, the Palm doesn't have rounded corners and has a nifty handgrip shape. Plus the "home" button doesn't look recessed.
Nor a capacitive touch screen, nor multitouch, nor a real browser, nor a decent music/audio playback, nor usable screen for mutimedia, nor built in store to buy music.
Again sounds like you should never allow a competitor on you board in the first place. Looks like trying to gang up on RIM and MSFT simply backfired.
Apple didn't have a competitor on their board. At the time Apple accepted Google onto the board, Google was not a competitor. As soon as Google became a competitor, they threw them off the board.
If Google had a shred of ethics, Schmidt would have designed the minute Google started talking about getting into mobile phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
That's true but the million dollar question is would iOS exist today if it weren't for the crappy mobile OSs that preceded it?
Well, if there were GOOD mobile phones, Apple might have decided that it was a market they didn't want to compete in. Apple might have chosen to go after a different market instead. But who cares? Unless you have a way to change history, the fact is that Apple saw a void a few years ago and went after it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets
In other words:
?We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.? - Steve Jobs[/url]
You can't protect an idea - ever. If he thinks he's the only one who can steal ideas he's a big fucking hypocrite.
It never ceases to amaze me how little the phandroid shills know about intellectual property.
IDEAS can not be protected by trademarks, patents, copyright, trade dress or any other intellectual property rights. Ideas are free for the world to use - so there's nothing wrong with Jobs' statement.
IMPLEMENTATION, OTOH, can be protected by trademarks, copyright, patents, trade dress, and so on. Google, Samsung, HTC, etc have copied Apple's implementation. It's not the fact that they used the same ideas that's an issue. It's the fact that they chose to use exactly the same implementation as Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprockkets
And what happens when WP7 and it's exact use of multi-touch gestures becomes popular? What happens when Windows 8 comes out? You going to wage war with them too Tim Cook?
If they violate Apple's patents, then Apple very well might.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471
It is ridiculous. Last time I checked, fine art like a Warhol isn't sold in the canned goods section of a grocery store. A picture of a can of soup is not a rip off of soup.....its art. Android is not making a collage of iPhones, their making iPhone clones. It is distasteful and repugnant and has nothing to do with genius of "stealing" in the context of art. Sheesh, is everyone going to start calling juvenile delinquents "geniuses" because they do lots of stealing?
Exactly. If Samsung wanted to paint a picture of an iPhone and have it displayed at the Louvre, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The claim that Samsung's phones can copy the iPhone because they're art is insane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
This is where Jobs really lost most of his grip on reality. Without Android, we'd prob be stuck with no multitasking, classic garbage notifications and no cloud-like services. If the Android platform were to suddenly fall into the abyss, you clowns would be wise to hope for a new worthy competitor to rise from the ashes.
Nonsense. Apple has an unrelenting drive to improve their own products even when there's no real competition. Mac OS improved significantly from 1982 to 1990 - even though Windows didn't yet exist. Similarly, look at the early iPhones. iPhone 3G and 3GS were marked improvements over the original iPhone even though there was no real competition. iPad 2 was a major improvement over the original - again, even though there was no competition.
Now, competition might tell Apple where to focus their energies and might have an impact on future products, but claiming that Apple would not have improved without competition is absurd. Apple's efforts are largely directed at making the greatest products that existing technology can handle. From a business perspective, the faster they can improve existing products, the more rapidly customers replace their existing products - even if there's no competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
So the problem isn't the stealing, but merely the frequency of the stealing?
No. It's the difference between 'stealing' an idea which is not protected and stealing an implementation which is.
It is also the difference between buying rights to use a technology from a willing seller (Siri or Xerox, for example) and simply taking it without permission (Google, Samsung)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99
Kettle mean pot
Palm TX from 2005
ROTFLMAO.
If you want to cite the Palm TX, you really should show the Newton from around 1992. That's far more similar to the TX than the TX is to the iPhone.
Comments
Palm TX from 2005
iPhone
Because like maybe he agreed with it?
Maybe. Maybe not.
The fact that you had to use the word "maybe" confirms that it is troublesome to draw conclusions from this out-of-context snippet. Yeah, I know you were being facetious, but that really only works when you know you are right. But you don't, so it doesn't.
Thompson
deleted
Android is given away for FREE. Thus by that very definition it CANNOT generate earnings for Google. Thus no need to mention it in an earnings meeting.
I beg to differ with your conclusion in a big way. While it's true that Google gets no compensation from the handset makers for their use of Android, Google is doing this (and spending much development $$$ on it) for a reason that comes back around to money.
Eventually, the question must arise: "How is that Android experiment working out for you in terms of capturing advertising revenue via Mobile search?" Data exists that can estimate the answer, and Google already knows the cost. One day, there will be a side-by-side comparison in order to determine Android's return on investment.
Thus, they must eventually mention it, unless the stock holders just decide to turn a blind eye and not ask the question.
Thompson
So the problem isn't the stealing, but merely the frequency of the stealing?
What is the amount of stealing one should find acceptable? Is it a time-weighted rate of theft (e.g., "7 thefts per year") or an aggregate count (e.g., "no more than 20 thefts overall")?
Reminds me of the US Senator who, when confronted about Abu Ghraib, said, "At least we're not Saddam Hussein".
As in every area of life - shockingly - it's the magnitude of the crime that matters. The iOS notification center is activated in a similar way to the Android notification center. It could, quite easily, work a different way. If Google had a patent on the notification center, they could sue Apple, and if Apple lost they could easily fix it. They probably wouldn't lose though, because the way notification center is activated is very similar to the way other tasks are achieved in iOS, and Apple itself created the set of multitouch gestures that define the possibilities in multitouch UIs. Meanwhile, Android owes its entire existence to iOS. It would be a completely different product if iOS had not existed. It's the difference between stealing someone's identity and cleaning out their bank account and taking a grape at the supermarket. So yeah, if you somehow had failed noticed before now, typically the magnitude and, yes, frequency of a crime is both legally and morally relevant.
deleted
deleted
Evil.
As in every area of life - shockingly - it's the magnitude of the crime that matters. The iOS notification center is activated in a similar way to the Android notification center. It could, quite easily, work a different way. If Google had a patent on the notification center, they could sue Apple, and if Apple lost they could easily fix it. They probably wouldn't lose though, because the way notification center is activated is very similar to the way other tasks are achieved in iOS, and Apple itself created the set of multitouch gestures that define the possibilities in multitouch UIs. Meanwhile, Android owes its entire existence to iOS. It would be a completely different product if iOS had not existed. It's the difference between stealing someone's identity and cleaning out their bank account and taking a grape at the supermarket. So yeah, if you somehow had failed noticed before now, typically the magnitude and, yes, frequency of a crime is both legally and morally relevant.
Should no one else have joined in on the party apple started?
They changed the game sure but they were never the only players and it's foolish of you to hold fault in Google for playing the game.
I never once said that Apple didn't influence Android. In fact, it influenced it a lot. But since you get so riled up over someone simply disagreeing with you I have no reason to discuss this with you. You're clearly one of those people who have some predetermined speech about Android the moment someone brings it up. Especially since you apparently know more than everyone. I've not once heard of confirmation that Android changed its product design post iPhone. Do I think it did? Hell yes I do. Am I certain it did? No. And neither should you. You see a picture of a very old prototype and make hundreds of conclusions about it. That's not someone I'd like to discuss things with. I'd much rather continue my discussion esummers, sorry.
I'm not riled up. I like a lot of what Android brings. But where you Android was 'inspired' I see they cloned. Samsung just took it a step further and made the cloning more blatant. Google has certainly done some new and innovative stuff with Android, but at it core, it's foundational UX is meant to mimic the iPhone.
To be fair, I work in RIM-town as a software developer (not at RIM) and until last year Google's Canadian development office was around the corner from me and in that office they have been doing a lot of mobile development, pre-iPhone launch and way before Android. They don't all contribute to Android proper, but certainly are very involved with Android as a platform. We are a fairly small city and developers mingle a lot. The people I've known from the Reqwireless days right up to Google today don't kids themselves the way you do. They are under no illusions that Android was more than inspired, but they are proud of what they have done since to differentiate themselves since.
Kettle mean pot
Palm TX from 2005
Are you seriously trying to compare that horrible stylus using, shitty browsing, low-rez, clunky, thing with nav arrows to the original iPhone?
Are you seriously trying to compare that horrible stylus using, shitty browsing, low-rez, clunky, thing with nav arrows to the original iPhone?
Hey now. It doesn't seem to matter if the way it looks or even works is different. Remember?
-_-
Are you seriously trying to compare that horrible stylus using, shitty browsing, low-rez, clunky, thing with nav arrows to the original iPhone?
2005 had certain technological limitation. Nevertheless, some companies were trying even then. Everyone who followed learned from their experience and example. It's a good thing.
Hey now. It doesn't seem to matter if the way it looks or even works is different. Remember?
-_-
You still don't get it. The Palm and the iPhone have similarities based on features that are common at some level, but at some other level of implementation their differences and merits of said differences can be debated. Some people believe that the differences between certain mobile devices and their respective OSes are trivial when compared at a level that is pertinent to their function, whereas other areas of differentiation create vastly different functionality. You see a great chasm between iOS and Android, others see a tiny crack. Your defense of your perception isn't going to change theirs. Get over it.
A little knowledge of the history of Apple's relationship with Xerox during that time would help greatly at this point... but I can't be bothered...
Exactly, island hermit. Ignorance is what it is and should be ignored for to feed it only generates more ignorance. And we have enough of that around.
Hey now. It doesn't seem to matter if the way it looks or even works is different. Remember?
-_-
To be fair, the Palm doesn't have rounded corners and has a nifty handgrip shape. Plus the "home" button doesn't look recessed.
Should no one else have joined in on the party apple started?
They changed the game sure but they were never the only players and it's foolish of you to hold fault in Google for playing the game.
The way the game is played, you either avoid stepping on other people's toes or you innovate on top of past innovation extensively enough that you have something other people want, and then you're in a position to negotiate. Google operates by copying something and giving it away for free. Its innovation is in sales. It's also the case that typically people "joining the party" have some connection with the party already, whereas Google is joining because it's worried about revenue for a completely unrelated product, and that's why its IP position is/was so abnormally weak.
I think what Google's doing here is an example of exactly why we need IP law. A company that relies on a revenue stream from a different market, entered another market and copied the IP of another company, simply because it wanted to ensure that company wouldn't become the market leader. If patent trolls are the dark side of having IP law, what Google did is the dark side of not having enforceable IP law, where innovators have their products stolen by companies whose goal is simply to ensure that they don't succeed because they're worried about their own market position.
I don't know what the outcome of all these patent suits will be - I suspect Google will get away with it - but quite apart from the minutiae details of IP law, I think if Google does get away with it, that's every bit as much an injustice as patent trolls who do nothing but collect patents and earn a living suing people.
To be fair, the Palm doesn't have rounded corners and has a nifty handgrip shape. Plus the "home" button doesn't look recessed.
Nor a capacitive touch screen, nor multitouch, nor a real browser, nor a decent music/audio playback, nor usable screen for mutimedia, nor built in store to buy music.
Again sounds like you should never allow a competitor on you board in the first place. Looks like trying to gang up on RIM and MSFT simply backfired.
Apple didn't have a competitor on their board. At the time Apple accepted Google onto the board, Google was not a competitor. As soon as Google became a competitor, they threw them off the board.
If Google had a shred of ethics, Schmidt would have designed the minute Google started talking about getting into mobile phones.
That's true but the million dollar question is would iOS exist today if it weren't for the crappy mobile OSs that preceded it?
Well, if there were GOOD mobile phones, Apple might have decided that it was a market they didn't want to compete in. Apple might have chosen to go after a different market instead. But who cares? Unless you have a way to change history, the fact is that Apple saw a void a few years ago and went after it.
In other words:
?We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.? - Steve Jobs[/url]
You can't protect an idea - ever. If he thinks he's the only one who can steal ideas he's a big fucking hypocrite.
It never ceases to amaze me how little the phandroid shills know about intellectual property.
IDEAS can not be protected by trademarks, patents, copyright, trade dress or any other intellectual property rights. Ideas are free for the world to use - so there's nothing wrong with Jobs' statement.
IMPLEMENTATION, OTOH, can be protected by trademarks, copyright, patents, trade dress, and so on. Google, Samsung, HTC, etc have copied Apple's implementation. It's not the fact that they used the same ideas that's an issue. It's the fact that they chose to use exactly the same implementation as Apple.
And what happens when WP7 and it's exact use of multi-touch gestures becomes popular? What happens when Windows 8 comes out? You going to wage war with them too Tim Cook?
If they violate Apple's patents, then Apple very well might.
It is ridiculous. Last time I checked, fine art like a Warhol isn't sold in the canned goods section of a grocery store. A picture of a can of soup is not a rip off of soup.....its art. Android is not making a collage of iPhones, their making iPhone clones. It is distasteful and repugnant and has nothing to do with genius of "stealing" in the context of art. Sheesh, is everyone going to start calling juvenile delinquents "geniuses" because they do lots of stealing?
Exactly. If Samsung wanted to paint a picture of an iPhone and have it displayed at the Louvre, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The claim that Samsung's phones can copy the iPhone because they're art is insane.
This is where Jobs really lost most of his grip on reality. Without Android, we'd prob be stuck with no multitasking, classic garbage notifications and no cloud-like services. If the Android platform were to suddenly fall into the abyss, you clowns would be wise to hope for a new worthy competitor to rise from the ashes.
Nonsense. Apple has an unrelenting drive to improve their own products even when there's no real competition. Mac OS improved significantly from 1982 to 1990 - even though Windows didn't yet exist. Similarly, look at the early iPhones. iPhone 3G and 3GS were marked improvements over the original iPhone even though there was no real competition. iPad 2 was a major improvement over the original - again, even though there was no competition.
Now, competition might tell Apple where to focus their energies and might have an impact on future products, but claiming that Apple would not have improved without competition is absurd. Apple's efforts are largely directed at making the greatest products that existing technology can handle. From a business perspective, the faster they can improve existing products, the more rapidly customers replace their existing products - even if there's no competition.
So the problem isn't the stealing, but merely the frequency of the stealing?
No. It's the difference between 'stealing' an idea which is not protected and stealing an implementation which is.
It is also the difference between buying rights to use a technology from a willing seller (Siri or Xerox, for example) and simply taking it without permission (Google, Samsung)
Kettle mean pot
Palm TX from 2005
ROTFLMAO.
If you want to cite the Palm TX, you really should show the Newton from around 1992. That's far more similar to the TX than the TX is to the iPhone.